Illegal Immigration

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes is the simple answer. Section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 already gives the Home Secretary the ability to designate safe countries. Many are already there, and we will continue to add to them as appropriate.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Prime Minister talks about the views of the British public. I am pretty sure that the British public also think that children should not be punished for the decisions of their parents. It may be an inconvenient truth on this planet, but one in five of those coming in small boats are under 18, as verified by the Home Office, not people on Twitter.

For six weeks, I have been asking the Government for the details of the safeguarding provision. During that time we have had multiple reports of children—who are with their families in those hotels for months on end—being sexually assaulted and abused. Nothing that the Prime Minister announced today will change that situation and how we treat those children, or apply the same rules to those children as we do to other children in temporary accommodation with their families. Will he now at least do the decent thing and make the safeguarding contract public so that we can see what provision the Government have made to look after those children, and will he make a commitment that families will be housed separately from single people?

[The Prime Minister]

The Government take their obligations towards children extremely seriously. Of course it is right that they are treated differently, and that is why the Immigration Minister has met the hon. Lady and we continue to make sure that safeguarding is followed throughout our processing system.

Tributes to Her Late Majesty The Queen

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

We have heard some glorious stories today about gin, cheese, fiddling with wands and what it was like to work with the Queen. But as I came into this place today and saw the trains full of people carrying flowers on their way to Green Park, it struck me that, for most people, it was just the Queen herself, and not to work with her, that was inspiring. I saw that when she came to Walthamstow during the diamond jubilee. The civic pride was evident, not least because we felt that we had won the competition with other nearby boroughs and that we were going to get to feed her. Even the most cynical, or those uncertain about royalty or put off by pomp could not help but bask in the glorious sunshine and the joy that came that day. Indeed, as she was driven round the fountain to the cheers of the schoolchildren, the Queen later told our late council leader, Chris Robbins, that the noise was deafening and like a pop concert—after all she had sat through enough to know what they sounded like.

It was surreal that day, but it embodied that sense of excitement—that awe we all felt when we were finally able to pass that MP rite of passage, “Have you met the Queen?” and look the schoolchildren in our communities in the eye. I have no doubt that there will be the same set of questions for King Charles. That interest was returned: it was so clear to me on that day that what she cared about was not the pomp of the politicians or the officials, but the people she got to meet.

It is only fitting that, in paying tribute to the Queen on behalf of the people of Walthamstow, I use their words. The borough commander, Simon Crick, who speaks on behalf of our local police, says that for them, she was a constant reassuring presence in an often turbulent world. Our council leader Grace Williams remembers the Queen’s devotion and service to our country, the Commonwealth and our people in a time of extraordinary change. Dr Ken Aswani, who speaks on behalf of our local NHS, says:

“She will remain a source of energy to us for many years to come to enable us to move forward together.”

Libby, a local volunteer who was born in 1953 and therefore named after the Queen, says she

“can honestly say I’m proud now to have been named after this incredible woman”.

Donna said:

“She carried herself so elegantly yet felt like everyone’s grandma at the same time.”

I represent a community with links across the world, and many constituents referred to that. Martin says:

“Her visit to Ireland, standing up and opening her speech in Irish was a stunning moment and her contribution to peace here can’t be overstated. Want to write more but just can’t find the words.”

Anthony records his appreciation for the Queen’s work in the Commonwealth and her defence of religious freedom around the world. Dorte, a Danish and British dual citizen, says that during the pandemic,

“She sent a ray of hope believing that one day we would see each other again.”

Philip reflects on how she book-ended his life; over time, he saw those postage stamps change. He first watched TV to see her coronation, and now on TV he hears of her passing. We now contemplate life without her sparkle and cheer to bring us together. People from all walks of life in communities such as mine were inspired by her.

Let us put on record our thanks to those people who, in coming days, will help us commemorate the Queen, including the police, the officials, and volunteers. One Queen, beloved; one King with well wishes; and all of us brought together in mourning. God save the King.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Extreme Heat Preparedness

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. He will be reassured to know that colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are in close touch with water companies, along with other partners, as they seek to get us through this particular 36 hours in good shape. He is quite right that where there is a problem with water supply, the easiest and best thing that can be done immediately is to communicate as much as possible, both when incidents happen and when the resolution and timeframe can be expected.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The problem with what the Minister is saying is that he admitted we have been here before. In 1976, we hit a temperature of 36° and in 2003 we hit a temperature of 38.3°. At those points, we had 20% and 59% excess deaths, so we know how dangerous heat is. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) asked us all to adapt. He needs to look at the evidence from history for why the climate crisis is so dangerous. We cannot adapt in this sort of heat. We know—the Minister just accepted it—that we will have more extreme weather conditions. Given that none of us wants to see history repeating itself, does he recognise how devastating it is for our communities? Yet again in my constituency today schools are closed, there is chaos with the trains and there is no national resilience strategy. The Minister talks about wanting to keep the lights on, but is it not the truth that he is keeping this country in the dark about the climate we face?

[Kit Malthouse]

One of the critical things we need to bear in mind is that this period of hot weather will be short. It will be 36 hours long. The kinds of effects that the hon. Lady mentions have generally been over longer periods. For example, in 2003 in France, I think it was, there were eight days of 40-plus and, critically, the temperature at night did not drop below 20°. In those circumstances, we need to look at vulnerable groups. I hope she will be promoting the message, through all her very sophisticated and well-followed social media channels, that we should do the neighbourly thing and knock on the door of older people who may be living alone, just to make sure they are okay for the moment, while, as I said earlier, we do our best to lead the world on making the changes we need to address climate change.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 13th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Neill]

I do understand that, which is why I have made it clear from the beginning that I am as much in favour of changes to the protocol as anyone else. Of course, the protocol had provisions written into it to enable those changes to take place, and that is what we would all want to see.

Let us be blunt: there will be a change of Prime Minister soon, and a change of personnel under those circumstances may—I hope it does—make negotiations easier. There has been a degree of strain in relations with the EU and the heads of some major Governments in the European Union. I very much hope that one consequence of what has happened is that it may be easier to rebuild and repair relationships and trust, and that could lead to a negotiated change, which would mean that this legislation was never necessary. Nobody would be more delighted than I—or, I suspect, anyone else in this House, including those on the Treasury Bench—if that were to be the case, but if the Bill is taken forward, we need proper safeguards to ensure proper parliamentary and democratic oversight of the way it is taken into force.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. Of course, Henry VIII only had six wives; this Bill has 19 delegated powers within 26 clauses. Does he agree that if we set a precedent that such legislation could be written here, it may be tempting for some Ministers to expand that precedent to other forms of legislation, so it is important that we confine whenever delegated powers are used—not just in this legislation, but to ensure that we uphold the primacy of this Chamber?

[Sir Robert Neill]

The hon. Lady makes a fair point. Those of us who have served as Ministers know that, frankly, all Governments use Henry VIII powers. We all tend to criticise them when we are in opposition and use them a bit when we are in government, if the truth be known. But the reality is that there are Henry VIII powers and Henry VIII powers; and this is Henry VIII, the six wives, Cardinal Wolsey and Thomas Cromwell all thrown in together, as far as I can see. The powers are almost Shakespearean or Wagnerian in their scope and breadth. That is the problem, and it is why we need some greater hold on how they are used.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) raised another important point. Very wide Henry VIII powers have been criticised by the Hansard Society and in the other place—and for good reason, because part of the whole objective of what we have done is recent years has been to restore parliamentary sovereignty. The danger is that that becomes restoring power to the Executive, rather than to Parliament. I say to my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches, we all know that Governments come and go, and once we set a precedent that gives sweeping powers to a Government with whom we may happen to agree, inevitably—as night follows day—there will be a day when a Government with whom we do not agree come in and use those powers in a way to which we might wish to object; it is better not to set too wide a precedent, anyway.

There is another difficulty with the powers. Clause 15 gives Ministers powers to add to excluded provisions. Not only is that extremely wide, but the clause refers to excluded provisions for “a permitted purpose”, without any further definition. In other respects, there is a test where the Minister may take any such measures in relation to the protocol as the Minister “considers appropriate”. That is an extraordinarily low test. Essentially, it lacks any kind of objectivity; it is a purely subjective test. Giving Ministers delegated powers to act in a purely subjective manner without requiring them to demonstrate the evidential basis on which they exercise those powers is a dangerous and difficult precedent to set.

In fairness, this Bill could not have been foreseen, but therefore could not be put in my party’s manifesto for the general election. It will be interesting to see—I know Ministers are well aware of this point—precisely what view the other place, which is anxious to examine the extent of delegated powers, takes on the matter. It might therefore be in the Government’s interest to progress the Bill to think about ways in which we can get a better balance, and ensure that there is a proper and proportionate hold on the powers.

I have covered the essence of what I needed to say. It comes down to whether the Government have a case—without going into the rest of the legal argument, I concede that they might be able to make that case—and whether that case might have grounds in law. I would say to my clients in the old days, “Just because it’s lawful doesn’t mean it’s a wise thing to do; just because you’ve got a case that you might argue, it might not necessarily be a good idea for you to go and argue it.” Sometimes litigation is best avoided and sometimes sweeping legislation is best avoided, if it is possible to find a better route.

It seems to me that if need be, it would not be unreasonable for the Government to come back to the House and make their case in relation to the specific items where they seek to disapply an international treaty. If they have a good enough case, the House will support them and they can get on with it; it can be done quickly and need not cause undue delay. That would at least ensure that we have acted within a reasonable and proportionate legal framework. At the same time, we could demonstrate that we are seeking, in good faith, to renegotiate. If we cannot do that, I suggest it would be prudent at the very least to invoke the article 16 safeguard provisions, either before or perhaps in parallel with those matters; we could show again that we have acted in good faith to do all that we could within the framework that exists, which is one of the important parts of a necessity test.

I hope that the Government will take on board those arguments, because they are pretty fundamental to the Bill itself and would not obstruct the objectives of the Bill—that is, getting the protocol changed or getting devolved government working in Northern Ireland, both of which we wish to see—but would enable them in a proportionate and constitutionally sound manner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

That brings me to my final point, which is on the democratic deficit.

[Stella Creasy]

rose—

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

But before addressing that I give way to the hon. Lady.

[Stella Creasy]

The right hon. Gentleman is talking about businesses and consumers who have been affected. Earlier on, his argument for this Bill was that it would somehow give the certainty that he says the protocol does not give to people. Can he, hand on heart, argue that he knows everything that will happen if the Government proceed with this legislation? Can he really tell his constituents that he can give them certainty in the chaos that we are talking about, which did not start with the protocol but started with Brexit? Where is his proof that this Bill provides certainty—the solution that he is missing—in comparison with what they know now? Better the devil!

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson]

I am many things, but I am not a prophet, so I cannot say with certainty that this will happen or that will happen. But I can point to this: when the protocol, as part of the withdrawal agreement, was before this House, we warned then of the consequences of the protocol. We are not late to the table in recognising the real difficulties that the protocol would cause in Northern Ireland for businesses, consumers, and our place in the United Kingdom. I am certain that the proposals put forward by the Government in this Bill are reasonable, fair and proportionate, and will offer what business needs to continue trading within the United Kingdom and with the European Union. That is the kind of certainty that businesses are looking for.

Let me turn to the point raised by the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), for whom I have great respect. This is very important. When the Government, and indeed those who supported Brexit, argued very strongly the case for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union, it was about taking back control—control of our borders, our money and our laws. Yet in the part of the United Kingdom that I have had the honour and privilege of representing in this House for 25 years now, this does not apply. As he said, many regulations applying to business in Northern Ireland, and how we trade with the rest of our own country, are now being made in Brussels without any democratic input whatsoever from anyone in Northern Ireland—not from me and my colleagues as Members of Parliament, or from Members of the Legislative Assembly at Stormont.

There is a democratic deficit that means that we are having laws imposed on us over which we have no say. That is not taking back control in our part of the United Kingdom. In terms of money, our rules on VAT and on state aid, for example, are determined not by this Government—not by this place—but by the European Union. We have no input into how our VAT rules are drawn up or into the rules on state aid, which apply to support for businesses in Northern Ireland We do not have complete control of our money in Northern Ireland and we are losing out because of those restrictions. It is therefore very important for us that we get this right. I believe, as I said, that what the Government have proposed is fair and reasonable, and will restore Northern Ireland’s place fully within the UK single market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will have heard what my hon. Friend has said.

I will now turn to amendment 27 and new clause 9, tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). The Bill is designed to provide swift solutions to the issues that the protocol has created in Northern Ireland. Those solutions are underpinned by the legal designation of elements of the protocol as excluded provision. Put simply, it is by excluding some elements of the protocol and withdrawal agreement in domestic law that the Bill can introduce the changes that are needed in Northern Ireland with the necessary certainty. Through the conditions they would impose, the hon. Lady’s amendments would undermine the ability to exclude elements of the protocol, and therefore undermine the entire operation of the Bill. I would also argue that they are unnecessary, because the actions they require are already being taken in practice during the passage of the Bill. By voting on its passage, both Houses of Parliament have an opportunity to indicate their approval for the principle of excluding elements of the protocol.

The Government have already clearly set out in the statement of 13 June that we consider the legislation to be lawful in international law. We have also already been clear on why we are not using the article 16 safeguard mechanism: it has inherent limitations on its scope, in that such safeguard measures could address some trade frictions but not the broader identified impacts of the protocol. It is therefore unnecessary to oblige the Government to repeat those statements before exercising the powers conferred by the Bill, which is why I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her amendments.

[Stella Creasy]

The Minister has said that my amendments are not necessary. That is very welcome, because new clause 9 requires the Government not just to tell us that they believe they are acting within international obligations, but to set out how, so that the House has a chance to confirm that it is not in breach of those obligations. If that is not necessary, can the Minister set out for us how he believes the legislation is in line with international obligations—not that it is, but specifically how?

[Michael Ellis]

I commend to the hon. Lady the legal memorandum that was published by the Government. It is, I think, only the second time that a Government of the day has published such a legal document, and it is exceptionally useful. We cannot publish the full legal advice—no Government can do that.

I will now turn to amendment 8, tabled by the hon. Member for Foyle. I certainly sympathise with the intention of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, but I reassure him that it is also entirely unnecessary. The Government have no intention whatever to use the power in clause 15 to alter the operation of the domestic consent mechanism, which I think answers the point that was made earlier on the Opposition Benches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Layla Moran]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), and I completely agree with him. I and the Liberal Democrats intend to vote against this Bill when it eventually comes to its Third Reading. I will speak today particularly to new clause 8 and its paving amendment 26.

First, however, I want to put on record my huge disappointment that the Bill is in Committee today because, since Second Reading, we have had a lame duck Prime Minister and a Foreign Secretary who cancelled her meeting with G20 leaders in Bali, where she should have been, and instead came back to start her leadership campaign. This Bill is an incredibly controversial move, and it would have been right and proper for it to have gone away for a while—under the definition of “urgent” that the Minister put forward, that would have seemed to make sense—and then come back when it is clear what direction the Government really want to take. Make no mistake, this Bill is going to affect our standing on the world stage.

My amendments relate to the release of the legal advice. It is absolutely right and proper that the Conservative leadership election has turned our eyes to honesty, integrity and, in particular, trust following what has happened with the current Prime Minister, and that is what my amendments do. They ask the Government, “What have you got to hide?” If there is nothing to hide, they should publish the full legal advice and trust this House to scrutinise it properly.

I urge Government Members to look carefully at what the Attorney General has said since giving her advice on this Bill, because she is also running to be leader of the Conservative party, and she has suggested pulling out of the European Court of Human Rights. As we know, the Court underpins the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. The Attorney General does not seem to understand how that correlates with the Good Friday agreement, yet we are relying on her legal advice. I would suggest that that is nothing we can rely on. We understand from newspapers that the Government shopped around for legal advice, and reportedly they even spoke to a former adviser of President Trump. However, if they have nothing to hide, they should publish the advice.

In the Minister’s response to my question earlier, he said the Government may well go to litigation over this and may well be taken to court over the definitions in relation to the doctrine of necessity. As a reason for advice not to be published, he said:

“We know that, famously, from the Labour Government a couple of decades ago, when there was an enormous controversy about that.”

That suggests that we should not see the legal advice because of what happened following the release of the advice on the Iraq war, but we know from the inquiry that that is nonsensical because the Government in that case did have something to hide and were found out later. If this Government want to get the trust of Parliament and do not want to have egg on their face in the international courts, they should release the advice. I urge them to support amendment 26, which I hope—by your leave, Dame Eleanor—we can push to a vote later.

[Stella Creasy]

We are now nearly three hours into the debate and we have not named what the actual problem is. The honest truth is that the problems did not start with the protocol; the problem is Brexit and the necessity of the protocol. For the avoidance of doubt, to acknowledge that Brexit is the problem is not to say that we do not need to change the protocol, it is not to call for us to rejoin the European Union and it is not to call for a second referendum. It is to recognise that selective democratic deafness when trying to discuss what we need to do will continue to damage all our opportunities unless we recognise that there is not a protocol solution that is as perfect as the previous trading arrangements we had.

The risk is that this Bill will make a bad situation worse, like someone having a bad tattoo and taking a blowtorch to it to try to get rid of it. The Government are like the drunk at a party spilling red wine everywhere and then deciding that throwing white wine after it is the solution. That is what this Bill is, which is why Members need to stop saying, like Homer Simpson, that Brexit is a “crisotunity” and recognise that problems are coming from the opportunities they are looking for. There are problems for civil servants who have to go through 2,500 pieces of legislation, and problems for our constituents, especially if the Bill goes through and we have a trade war with Europe. That will hit everybody—not just those in Northern Ireland, but people in my constituency. There are problems caused by the fact that the EU has already launched legal action and could “restrict co-operation”, and problems for the 33% of businesses that have already given up trading with the European Union, including those mentioned by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson)—I am sorry he is not in his place to talk about these things. [Interruption.] I apologise; he has moved and I could not see him.

We knew these problems were going to happen, yet the Government have done nothing other than introduce this Bill to make things better; they look only to provoke and to make things worse. We talked about oven-ready deals, yet the Foreign Secretary says that the problems were baked in. Frankly, Mary Berry would see the Bill as having a soggy bottom because it is so rubbish.

The report by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law states clearly that the Bill is in breach of international law, and that is why I tabled new clause 7. I hope the Minister will recognise that simply repeating again and again, as the legal memorandum does, that the Government believe that the Bill meets the test of necessity under international obligations, without explaining how, is not tort, it is just a tautology. We cannot say something is necessary and not say why it is necessary, or whether the conditions might change—I agree absolutely with the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on those matters. We know there are things we could do to make that clear, and at least to take back control—after all, the Government said that Brexit was about democracy, but it is turning out to be about Downing Street instead.

New clause 10 would ensure that the Government act within international law. New clause 7 is about evidence that we are acting within international law, and about explaining to our constituents why it would be necessary to take such extreme measures. As the Hansard Society tells us, the Bill is breathtaking in the additional powers it takes and the exercise of those excessive powers, with 19 delegated powers under 26 clauses—I have never seen anything like it in this place in the past 12 years. Those powers are based on ideas that Ministers consider “appropriate”, just as they consider what is “necessary”. As we have seen today, however, they cannot really define what “urgent” means. Most people would recognise that “urgent” probably means “immediate”, rather than “sometime in the future.” Considering that any provision can be made by an Act of Parliament, as the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) recognised, if we allow that with the Bill, we could see it for other Bills—literally taking back control from these Benches and sending it to the road opposite.

Finally, there is no way that the Bill supports the Good Friday agreement, which, in and of itself, is an international agreement. We want to stand and challenge President Putin as he rips up the rule of law, yet we say that there are rules of law that we think no longer apply to us. How can we say that we will also guarantee the protections of the Good Friday agreement? How can we give the constituents of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley the certainty they want, and that we recognise they should have, to be able to go about their business and have peace and prosperity, if we act as if the rule of law does not matter or can be bent to shape the will of a particular political movement?

The Bill is about the Government needing Europe to be a bogeyman, and as we have seen from the leadership contest, there are bogeymen aplenty. In reality, this can do only harm. We must recognise that the problem does not start with the protocol. The problem starts with Brexit, and how we negotiate a trade agreement and deal with the problems that arise from leaving the single market and customs union. Our constituents in every part of the United Kingdom deserve that honesty. New clause 7 is about Governments being honest, and just as new clause 10 should not have needed to be tabled, nor should new clause 7, but it did need to be tabled under current circumstances. The people who rely on this place to make reasonable regulations, to admit their problems, as though they were 12-step problems, and to make amends, need and deserve nothing less.

[Ian Paisley]

Why is the Bill necessary? That is what the Committee has just been asked. That is the question. Well, the preamble to the protocol states clearly that its objective is to uphold the Belfast agreement. Why is its objective to uphold the Belfast agreement? Because the Belfast agreement creates something called power sharing. Power sharing has clearly broken down. Some people may not like the reasons for that, but it has broken down, therefore the Bill is necessary. It is as plain and obvious as that—perhaps we have to say it slower for some people to pick up on the reality that power sharing has broken down, and therefore the Bill is necessary. Do not take my word for it: last week in the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, two international lawyers gave us expert evidence. I think there is only one international lawyer in the Chamber today, the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox), who has stated his position. I respect those opinions, but I do not think there has been any other international law expert or practitioner in the Chamber. I can therefore only quote from experts who have given the Committee their expert opinion through the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.

CHOGM, G7 and NATO Summits

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I know that my hon. Friend has military experience himself, but what we are learning from Ukraine is the vital importance of having troops with a military operation that has 360° protection and the best possible equipment. That is a lesson that the Russians are learning to their cost themselves.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Prime Minister will have heard the deep concern on both sides of the House, particularly from the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), about grain in Ukraine and the issue of world hunger and poverty. The Prime Minister said in response that he was talking about the possibility of seeking a solution that may not have the consent of the Russians. For the avoidance of doubt, can he confirm to the House that he is looking at breaching the Montreux agreement about larger forces in the Black sea?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is right to raise that. No, we are not looking at doing that. There are alternative solutions that do not involve the presence of UK or other warships in the Black sea, although they might involve a tougher approach. We are also looking at the possibility of using the rivers, particularly the Danube, and the railways to get the grain out in smaller quantities than we would be able to do with a giant maritime convoy through the Black sea. We are looking at all the options, including smaller packets of grain coming out in that way.

Bill of Rights

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for, as ever, the colourful and eloquent way that he presents the issue. When it comes to collective interest, social policy and finely balanced judgments around public protection, I do think that adjudication in court by lawyers, rather than a broader discussion and debate among elected Members of Parliament accountable to their citizens, is a mistake. We will protect the fundamental freedoms that make this country great—they existed long before the Human Rights Act and they will exist long after. He is right about the balance between protecting individual liberty and freedom under the rule of law, of which I am immensely proud, and making sure that elected Members of this House can protect the public, take finely balanced judgments on social policy, and take judgments that affect the public purse.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Many of our constituents have seen the benefits of human rights, such as the bereaved unmarried widows who had to take the Government to court to make sure that their children were not ignored when it came to pensions, or the women in Northern Ireland who are counting on us to support the statutory instrument to make sure that they have the human right to choose what happens to their own body and to have an abortion. They will be reassured by the Deputy Prime Minister saying that we will remain signatories to the European convention. Can he confirm to his colleagues, who might want to think about the implications of that, that because we will remain signatories and bound by the convention, the European Court of Human Rights will remain the ultimate judicial decision maker on human rights in this country? He is not getting rid of Europe; he is just wasting our time.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is right about the first point, but wrong about the second. That is clear from the Bill of Rights.

Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Thursday 21st April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I think she will recognise the spirit and inspiration of what I am saying, as people did on Tuesday, but I do not wish to be drawn excessively into theology about the timing of one’s repentance, and I will move on.

Many Members of this House—I can see some of them on the Opposition Benches—choose to live their lives under certain commands: to love even their enemies, to bless those who curse them and, yes, to forgive as they are forgiven, sometimes for grave matters. So when I sat here and listened to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister say the words he said in the House of Commons—which I will not put back on the record, because people know what he said—and when I read them again in Hansard, I think that is an apology worthy of consideration of forgiveness for what went on, because this has moved beyond law. As far as I know, no one else in this country is being investigated by the police for retrospective offences—it is gone, it is behind them, it is past—but those in No. 10 Downing Street are being held to a higher standard in ways that other members of the public are not. [Interruption.] I can hear Members barracking, but that is right.

When we imposed these not merely draconian but barbaric rules on other people, everybody in the centre of power should have understood that they had to obey not merely the letter but the spirit of those rules. There should have been no cake in No. 10 and no booze in No. 10; these things should not have happened. I do not defend or condone in any way what happened.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am mesmerised by the hon. Gentleman’s psychic powers if he does not understand that all offences are retrospective—unless he knows someone who is going to commit an offence. To err is human and to forgive divine, but to transgress repeatedly, as the report already shows us, is something else. Is it not important that we have this inquiry now to understand whether that has happened and there has been a repeated offence against the House? In the past year, half of the public have lost what little trust they had in politicians. The longer this goes on and the more repetition there is, the more all of us are besmirched. Is it not right, in the spirit of forgiveness and redemption, that we are all given the opportunity for salvation?

[Mr Baker]

Not for the first time, the hon. Lady tempts me to give her references. On the point about repeated offences and forgiveness, I would encourage her to look at Romans 7. She invites me to clarify what I said. Of course all offences are retrospective. My point is that the police are treating Downing Street staff especially harshly in a way that the rest of the public are not being treated. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) wants to say that is not true, I will take his intervention.

Easter Recess: Government Update

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend very much. I understand the frustration and anger of his constituents in Sedgefield. I understand perfectly how they feel; I renew my apologies to them, and I also share what he has to say about Ukraine.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Conservative Members have talked about repentance, the Prime Minister has offered us his apology, and we are being asked to move on, but the critical question for all of us is whether the Metropolitan police has moved on from this matter. The Prime Minister says that he cannot deal with hypotheticals, but now that it has occurred to him what a party actually is, can he tell us whether he expects more fines to come? Yes or no?

[The Prime Minister]

I would love to give more commentary on this, but I have told the House very clearly that I cannot do that until the investigation is complete.

Afghanistan

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I was telling the House that we are making sure that we bring back the 35 brilliant Chevening scholars so that they can come and study in our great universities. We are deploying an additional 800 British troops to support this evacuation operation and I can assure the House that we will continue the operation for as long as conditions at the airport allow.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

As of last week, it was still Home Office policy that we would send people back to Kabul because we thought that it was safe. Will the Prime Minister also confirm that it is not just about people coming out of Afghanistan but about keeping people safe here, and that we will not send people back to this nightmare?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is entirely right that we will not be sending people back to Afghanistan; nor, by the way, will we allow people to come from Afghanistan to this country in an indiscriminate way. We want to be generous, but we must make sure that we look after our own security. Over the coming weeks, we will redouble our efforts, working with others to protect the UK homeland and all our citizens and interests from any threat that may emanate from a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, from terrorism to the narcotics trade.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am sure I speak on behalf of everyone in passing on condolences to the Member who has just spoken.

What we are dealing with here is a failure of leadership, not of the military that served that leadership—we should never confuse the two. Both western and Afghan forces have served with great courage and are responsible for the successes achieved in the 20 years. It is a failure to understand Afghanistan and how the Taliban capitalised on UK and US forces’ counter-insurgency approaches, and the corruption of tribal leadership.

The Pashtun saying, “You have all the watches, we have all the time” reflects the speed with which the Taliban have acted. They took their first city just 12 days ago and now they have Kabul. But just as this was not inevitable, or indeed unexpected, so it is not inevitable that all we can do is despair.

The Taliban said on Monday that those who worked with foreign forces have nothing to fear as long as they show remorse. Do not tell them that they are cowards or that they should stay; help them get out. The bureaucracy that our interpreters, support staff and their families face must not be the reason why they lose their lives. I urge the Government to talk to the current and former servicemen and women who know those people, rather than asking people about paperwork, bureaucracy and biometric tests, because that it what is keeping people in Kabul airport right now.

Yes, the airport matters, but people have to get through the checkpoints to get to Kabul, so we need an extraction plan for everyone. We need to be clear on whom we owe a duty to: not just the interpreters, but the women who set up schools and the people who stood up when we asked them to work in the embassies and NGOs. The resettlement scheme is very welcome, but resettling from where, and how? Wars and persecution do not work to a timetable for paperwork.

Like many, in Walthamstow I have families who are desperate. There is an interpreter for the UK, whose dad did the same job for the Americans, and the Taliban are looking for them both. Another is here but his disabled family members in Kabul are at risk because he helped the MOD. Are we comfortable that mum or dad or brother or sister is fair game for the Taliban as punishment? Of course we need family reunion to be part of the settlement scheme. Or there is the family who walked for four hours to get to the embassy but have an Afghan mother. Are we really going to separate them? Or there is the man who has been trying to get his wife out since 2018 but, because of covid, her visa was delayed.

Numbers matter less than need. We need to reject this artificial distinction between resettlement and asylum. I am pleased to hear the Prime Minister commit not to send people back, but I hope the Home Secretary was listening, because the same Ministers who proudly boast about stopping boats forget to tell us that it is Afghans on those boats—people who have been fleeing this situation.

Instead of posturing, we need to challenge Macron and our European partners, and work with them, to ensure that everybody does their fair share to help. We need to get ahead of this crisis because at the moment we are always playing catch-up. President Biden may not have spoken to other world leaders since the fall of Kabul, so I am pleased to hear that the Prime Minister is, because we need to get agreement, via the UN and NATO, that if the Taliban provide a safe haven for al-Qaeda or ISIS, we will not stand for it. We need assurances from our counterparts in China and Russia that they will not veto action at the Security Council either.

Yes, this is a humanitarian disaster, but it is also a human rights one. Equality is not just being able to leave the house alone. Those Afghan women who are doctors, judges and politicians need us to do more than wring our hands. We have already heard that girls are being banned from school and forced into marriages. As the quote goes, “The Taliban talk nice during the day and disappear people at night.”

We must also say that this is not Islam. Islam is not the reason why people are clinging to planes to save their lives—that is brutalism and terrorism. We must not let people divide us here or overseas in the fight for those values. There may have been a failure of leadership so far, but it does not have to continue if we work together.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stella Creasy Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. Given the significance of this anniversary, we want to ensure that marking the centenary has a lasting legacy both in Northern Ireland and right across the UK. The shared history fund will support the engagement of a wide range of arts, heritage, voluntary, community and other non-profit organisations across the whole United Kingdom. We are engaging with Departments across Government, including the other territorial offices, the Cabinet Office and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, as we continue to drive forward on this and other elements of our centenary programme.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the provision of abortion services in Northern Ireland under section 9 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019.

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)]

I recognise the hon. Lady’s work on this important issue and appreciate the engagement that we have had on it to date. Regulations have been in place to make provision for safe and lawful access to abortions since 31 March 2020. Some service provision has been available since last April, with over 719 women and girls having been able to access services locally by mid-October last year. We take our moral and legal duties on this matter very seriously and remain disappointed that full abortion services remain to be commissioned by the Department of Health, which would be the most appropriate way to progress the matter. We continue to monitor the situation closely.

[Stella Creasy [V]]

It is a very familiar situation. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and a vulnerable woman have been left with no option but to take the UK Government to court to ensure access to abortion at home—except we are in a different situation, because this House voted to require the Secretary of State to uphold these women’s rights and ensure that they could access abortion at home. With clear evidence that over 100 women have been refused abortions and that they are buying pills online again, will the Secretary of State and Ministers confirm that they will act to uphold UK legislation, save the UK taxpayer court costs and act to intervene now?

[Mr Walker]

I can confirm to the hon. Lady that we continue to engage with the Minister of Health and his Department on commissioning full services, and have been since the regulations came into effect. We remain of the view that this is the most appropriate way to progress the matter. I am pleased that the Northern Health and Social Care Trust was able to resume services early this year, and I am hopeful that the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust will soon be able to do so as well. The Government continue to fund access to services in England, particularly where local access may not be available; even in the current circumstances, some women and girls have availed themselves of those services. We continue to monitor the situation closely and will consider further legislative action at Westminster at the appropriate time, should it be required.